Abstract: Can one reconcile the notion of sovereignty of a people and the principle of democracy with constitutionalism? In other words, is it possible to integrate a form of « Rule of Men » with a form of « Rule of Law »? If the answer is affirmative, how would Canadian courts conceptualize this integration? The writer undertakes a critical examination of two influential theories in Canada: the « sovereignty of the People » theory and the « precommitment » theory. In his opinion, one of the theses posited by the Supreme Court relies upon the notion that a Constitution is conceived in order to « inspire » or to « create » democracy, and not to « limit » it. Therefore, that which harmonizes constitutionalism with democracy does not reside in the original intent of a sovereign people to adopt a constitution, but in the actual content of the constitutional norms destined to institute a democratic system of governance, and which are recognized as valid by the courts. Moreover, it is for the courts to determine ultimately which constitutional norms render democracy both possible and legitimate.